Serious Question re: Our "Fullback"

[stylee]

"The position is not defined by how they are used, It's where their alignment is. If you have a person lined up in a 5tech every down. No matter if they rushed the passer or dropped into coverage in a 4-3 scheme. They are the DE"

And the "5-tech" nomenclature developed after "defensive end." And "tight end" evolved after "end."
Terminology changes.

The "quarterback" was a quarter of the way back in early arrangements PRIOR to the evolution of the under-center snap. The "quarterback" today is not a quarter of the way back when he takes the snap directly from the center, the way he was prior to the invention of the under-center T.

Your own argument fails you here - we still call Justin Thomas a 'quarterback' when he's under center. Is he not, just because his alignment is different? How about deep shotgun snaps? If the distance from the center is what matters, how can DeShaun Watson and Justin Thomas be playing the same position - quarterback?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

The position is not defined by how they are used, It's where their alignment is.

Sigh. I'm fine with that. I said that already in another response. You win. Yippee.

Definition or role, to me that's just semantics.

Why on earth did you go on and on about how the role of the fullback has changed? The definition of the position in terms of alignment is not detrimental to our recruiting, it's the perception of the role of the position that matters. People assume our "fullback" does what everybody else's "fullback" does and this is perpetuated by the media. Agree?

 

[stylee]

For an example of why 33jacket is off here:

That's a traditional single wing formation. The quarterback is not "behind center" here; he's a 'quarter' of the way back (and over the tackle too, fwiw) and so can still receive an airborne snap.
That changed with the popularization of the under center T formation, wherein the QB was now taking the snap directly from the center.

Despite the difference in alignment, the QB was still a QB.

Justin Thomas, undercenter and not a quarter of the way back, is a QB. DeShaun Watson, in the shotgun and not a quarter of the way back, is a QB. That's because the term "quarterback" evolved to encompass something separate from alignment - it now referred to a player's function.

 

[ibeattetris]

"The position is not defined by how they are used, It's where their alignment is. If you have a person lined up in a 5tech every down. No matter if they rushed the passer or dropped into coverage in a 4-3 scheme. They are the DE"

And the "5-tech" nomenclature developed after "defensive end." And "tight end" evolved after "end."
Terminology changes.

The "quarterback" was a quarter of the way back in early arrangements PRIOR to the evolution of the under-center snap. The "quarterback" today is not a quarter of the way back when he takes the snap directly from the center, the way he was prior to the invention of the under-center T.

Your own argument fails you here - we still call Justin Thomas a 'quarterback' when he's under center. Is he not, just because his alignment is different? How about deep shotgun snaps? If the distance from the center is what matters, how can DeShaun Watson and Justin Thomas be playing the same position - quarterback?

Yet interestingly, when a RB lines up in the shotgun to receive a snap they are not labeled as a QB either.

The named position of a player is obviously driven by both your role and location on the field. In my opinion, fullback description fits our BBack since a fullback is spatially similar and fulfills a similar role (running, blocking, receiving). Calling it a feature back or running back or BBack all work too since those primarily indicate role on the field without regard to the location. As mentioned in another thread, if our BBack took a step back and was standing, it would look like a prototypical hb, but would still fulfill the same role, albeit slower to the hole. It would still be a BBack but it wouldn't still be a fullback.

 

[AE 87]

Fwiw, our sports info guys do give them our names. Commentators who see wishbone translate to fullback etc.

I'm not sure telling them slot back and tail back would change that.

 

[stylee]

Yet interestingly, when a RB lines up in the shotgun to receive a snap they are not labeled as a QB either.

The named position of a player is obviously driven by both your role and location on the field. In my opinion, fullback description fits our BBack since a fullback is spatially similar and fulfills a similar role (running, blocking, receiving). Calling it a feature back or running back or BBack all work too since those primarily indicate role on the field without regard to the location.

I have no problem with that (though I note that our BB only does about as much actual run blocking as any HB). My concern is primarily with practicality.
We can help ourselves here. Let's do that.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Yet interestingly, when a RB lines up in the shotgun to receive a snap they are not labeled as a QB either.

The named position of a player is obviously driven by both your role and location on the field. In my opinion, fullback description fits our BBack since a fullback is spatially similar and fulfills a similar role (running, blocking, receiving). Calling it a feature back or running back or BBack all work too since those primarily indicate role on the field without regard to the location. As mentioned in another thread, if our BBack took a step back and was standing, it would look like a prototypical hb, but would still fulfill the same role, albeit slower to the hole. It would still be a BBack but it wouldn't still be a fullback.

I disagree that the term fullback describes our bback in terms of role of position. Yes, fullbacks in most systems block, carry and receive. However, their primary role is to block. That is not true in describing the role of the bback.

 

[IronJacket7]

Really???

I could care less what ESPN calls our B-Back.

7 years later and they still call our offense the Triple Option.

 

[ibeattetris]

@stylee interesting picture. Were those terms used prior to that formation, or were the terms used to for that formation?

@dcs I understand where you are coming from. I just disagree that the distribution of responsibilities should change what you are called. I still stand by the opinion that the announcers should use the formation specific terms of B/Aback.
Edited some grammar and spelling.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Really???

I could care less what ESPN calls our B-Back.

7 years later and they still call our offense the Triple Option.

It matters in recruiting.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

@stylee interesting picture. Were those terms used prior to that formation, or were the terms used to for that formation.

@dcs I understand where you are coming from. I just disagree that the distribution of responsibilities should change what you are called. I still stand by the opinion that the announcers should use the formation specific terms or B/Aback.

I think if announcers weren't lazy and went the extra inch to explain the role of "fullbacks" in our offense, it would help tremendously. It's the perception of the position's primary role that's detrimental to recruiting.

 

[stylee]

@stylee interesting picture. Were those terms used prior to that formation, or were the terms used to for that formation.

Prior to that particular formation, but most early football formations were some variant of that shotgun/single wing looking thing. The Notre Dame Box was another formation that was similar in setup. The ND Box is actually a relatively late development but here it is;

I'd point out that the T-formation is actually quite old, but that it didn't actually get much use until relatively late in the game's development. The "alignment based" position names were all coming from pre-modern American football formations that enjoyed wide usage in early football: the 'single wing' type looks.

 

[DCSS]

I can see where it would hurt recruiting. If your ideal BBack is an oversized Tailback, you will have a tough time convincing him to be a fullback. As great as Czonka was, he may not be the prototype BBack. Neither would Jim Taylor, as much as I admired his running style. The ideal BBack may have been someone like Earl Campbell, Eddie George, or John Riggins.

 

[33jacket]

"The position is not defined by how they are used, It's where their alignment is. If you have a person lined up in a 5tech every down. No matter if they rushed the passer or dropped into coverage in a 4-3 scheme. They are the DE"

And the "5-tech" nomenclature developed after "defensive end." And "tight end" evolved after "end."
Terminology changes.

The "quarterback" was a quarter of the way back in early arrangements PRIOR to the evolution of the under-center snap. The "quarterback" today is not a quarter of the way back when he takes the snap directly from the center, the way he was prior to the invention of the under-center T.

Your own argument fails you here - we still call Justin Thomas a 'quarterback' when he's under center. Is he not, just because his alignment is different? How about deep shotgun snaps? If the distance from the center is what matters, how can DeShaun Watson and Justin Thomas be playing the same position - quarterback?

Paul johnson has called them full backs his whole life in this offense. I don't know why all of a sudden everyones panties are in a wad. THEY ARE FULLBACKS. They are lined up where a FB lines up. He calls them fullbacks. Why are you guys so upset over this.

but Paul himself calls him a fullback read page 10. So I guess now that he runs this at GT this statement must no longer apply? Or was paul confused? Now I am confused. How can paul call them fullback in quotes when he isn't? That is because he is.
http://www.gseagles.com/custompages/football/FB_MG_1999.pdf

Here is 2000 southern roster...all called FBs.
http://www.gseagles.com/custompages/football/FB_MG_2000.pdf

if that is not enough, he called them fullbacks at navy too in 2006.

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/navy/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/5-2006-Profiles-fb.pdf PAGE 2 Quotes.

And again fullback in 2007
http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/navy/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/3-Outlook-fb-07.pdf PAGE 2 QUOTES

Ah but he now calls them BBack in 2008 when he goes to Tech. SAME FREAKING POSITION

our own media guide parenthesis's BBack with fullback.

 

[33jacket]

For an example of why 33jacket is off here:

That's a traditional single wing formation. The quarterback is not "behind center" here; he's a 'quarter' of the way back (and over the tackle too, fwiw) and so can still receive an airborne snap.
That changed with the popularization of the under center T formation, wherein the QB was now taking the snap directly from the center.

Despite the difference in alignment, the QB was still a QB.

Justin Thomas, undercenter and not a quarter of the way back, is a QB. DeShaun Watson, in the shotgun and not a quarter of the way back, is a QB. That's because the term "quarterback" evolved to encompass something separate from alignment - it now referred to a player's function.

IF you want to post stuff from 1940s great. Doesn't change the fact our BB is a FB And even paul says so LOL. Paul has called them fullbacks for over a decade. What now its different?

 

[stylee]

I'm not arguing about what Paul Johnson says. I'm arguing:

1) You're off base with your explanation about alignment
2) That, from a pragmatic standpoint, we should stress a different name for them.

I think these two points are pretty well-supported.

 

[stylee]

LOL i just dont' know what to say none of the above pertains to modern football. The QB in modern football is lined behind center and receives the snap. If he doesn't he isn't a QB for that play or in general. IF you want to post stuff from 1940s great. Doesn't change the fact our BB is a FB And even PAul says so LOL

Your argument was "alignment dictates position name." In support of this argument you mentioned the rugby-football evolution and the quarter/half/full terminology.
You can "LOL" all you want, but you've been hoisted on your own petard here.

 

[33jacket]

Your argument was "alignment dictates position name." In support of this argument you mentioned the rugby-football evolution and the quarter/half/full terminology.
You can "LOL" all you want, but you've been hoisted on your own petard here.

alignment does. In modern football. You are posting old crap for old alignments. In modern football alignment dictates assignment and position. Its just a fact. Sure you can have a guy that normally plays RB take a snap...but guess what, for that play he is the QB. He took the snap. The defense keys him as a QB. You can call him what you want.

where you align dictates what role you play and how you are defined. A guy lining up in the TE spot...he is playing the TE assignment, and the D will key him as a TE.

why do you think different formations try to gain advantages? Because everything is keyed off alignment and assignment. you can call em what you want. But as a LB i read TB through the guard and FB. I read a FB center back. I do the same with our BB.

 

[stylee]

Ha, I played high school football with a guy on the same page of the 2006 Navy thing you posted. Good guy too.

 

[ibeattetris]

A question I've had: Is there a reason the BBack has his hand down? I understand the depth aspect of the position but would there be a discernible difference if the BBack was standing? Does anyone know if any flexbone variants have attempted this?